Beyond Mars and Venus - Quareness Series (47th "Lecture").
How often these days do we hear politicians and others in response to failure in our institutions or systems insist that steps are taken "to ensure it never happens again"? Or how often are we "assured" by high profile experts that this or that assertion is "clearly the case" or that "the science is settled"? Or how often do we hear commentators and so-called opinion leaders use the phrasing "everybody knows" or "everybody agrees"? And why do so many indulge in this game which is so obviously at variance with reality?
For your consideration in this "talk" I want to point to perhaps some possible reason(s) for this "strangeness".
Personality, it would appear, profoundly shapes our lives and it seems that our place along the extravert-introvert spectrum is the most profound aspect of our individual personalities. The characteristics of both ends of this spectrum broadly range from....being gregarious and comfortable in the spotlight, preferring action to contemplation, risk-taking to caution, certainty to doubt, quick decisions, working in groups and socialising....to a preference for sensitivity, seriousness and (to some extent) "shyness". Generally it seems that in Western societies those tending toward extraversion are viewed as more competent, better-looking and desirable. And this is so despite the fact that many of those societies' great achievements have their origins in introverted individuals e.g. theory of evolution, information technology, and much of our art and literature. Indeed it looks like our societies themselves have "personalities" which are more extravert than introvert (on a macro scale with broadly Westernised values that promote individuality as against traditional Eastern values which foster group cohesion?), partly driven by the historical movement from small community based living / working (where what mostly mattered was the character of individuals shown in how they were seen to behave privately by people / neighbours they knew) to a city / urbanised existence (where it became necessary for folks routinely "to sell themselves" to relative strangers - a "performance" idea not unrelated to the rise of mass consumer advertising and mass anxiety in our "competitive selling" cultures).
How does this show in practice? Some indicators include a strong bias towards group activity in our schools and workplaces (e.g. constant interaction and meetings are afforded a high rating), a tendency to promote outsized personalities in "entertainment" (perhaps in the belief that quiet or "ordinary" people do not appeal to the audience majority), a general uneasiness with those labelled as "odd", a general reluctance to make the effort to think deeply about things, a strong preference for authority to comfort us with certainty, etc. And much of our "living architecture" reflects these preferences e.g. small cluster seating in schools, open plan homes and offices, the ongoing shrinkage of the quiet and private, the viewing of "shyness" as a sort of illness that needs "correction", or denigrating those who "are in their head too much" (= thinking!). The problem here of course is that our models of good living may not be sufficiently catering for a not insignificant (possibly 30-50%?) segment of our peoples who are more naturally on the introversion side of the scales, thereby losing out somewhat on the benefits (democratic and otherwise) of a better balanced society for all.
At the individual level we could perhaps identify ourselves as more extraverted or introverted by considering a broad set of personal preferences...the former might generally favour for example lots of social interaction, tackling assignments quickly, multi-tasking (in truth less a paying attention habit than surface switching back and forth between tasks which has been shown to reduce productivity and increase mistakes), the lure of wealth and fame, the "thrill of the chase" for reward, being assertive and dominant and in great need of company, drawn to an external life of people and activities...while the latter might be more inclined towards limiting social stimulation, slow and deliberate working, one-task concentrated focussing, listening more than talking, thinking before speaking, favouring written expression rather than conversation and deep discussion rather than small talk, drawn to an inner world of thought and feeling. Such of course would constitute just a broad indication of one's core personality orientation but it does appear that a clear difference between the two types may lie around the extravert's need to recharge by socialising more, as against the introvert's felt need to withdraw into solitude from "too much" people interaction in order to replenish his / her energy stores.
Because our extraverts are more "up front" with their inclinations / preferences it may help in distinguishing between the two types to list a few more introvert "markers"...preference for one-to-one over group activities / conversations, caring less about wealth /fame /status, not taking big risks, absorbing work with few interruptions, not showing work until finished, peace over conflict, lectures over seminars, soft spoken over loudness, and working alone...and a common introverted trait...feeling drained after being out and about.
The common view in our Western societies is that leaders must act confidently and make decisions with incomplete information because if you exude any uncertainty, morale suffers and investors may be put off. Speaking firmly on the basis of bad information seems not to carry the same degree of disapproval, even if people are thereby (mis)led into disaster. At bottom the bias here is towards turning quiet people into "holding forth" talkers to the detriment of listening, asking questions and putting others' needs first. Nevertheless, much of the evidence suggests that charismatic leaders (though often rewarded more) are less effective in the role than those of a more unassuming nature, which outcome is likely reflecting the fact that much of the leading actually involved is done in small rather than large groups and through written or video rather than verbal communication...in other words we don't appear to really need that much of the public "on show" stuff to be truly effective. It could also be of course that whilst extraverted leaders (blessed with a natural assertive ability to inspire) are more likely to enhance the group performance of passive (non initiative taking) followers, the introverted ones may likely be more effective (through perhaps listening more) in leading proactive people. Could this be a pointer to some real reasons for ultimate success or failure in say our competitive team sports or even our political, religious or social institutions?
We might also wonder whether in our modern speeding up / fast moving "work" environment, more and more proactive members are increasingly vital to organisational success? Is the modern (and possibly rapidly becoming redundant) interpretation of "righteous behaviour" (= equating godliness with sociability in what we "put out into the world" as against what's done quietly "behind closed doors") blinding us to rapidly approaching realities? Given that most artists, inventors and "ideas people" seem to work best independently and on their own, private "alone" time to think and recharge the batteries may become the prime "survival" element driving our evolutionary journey in our future societies...if you're sitting alone under a tree away from the crowd you're more likely to have an apple fall on your head!
There's much evidence to suggest that high reactive (to stimuli) small kids tend to grow into cautious (often introverted) adults who may tend to live in their heads (a familiar safer environment for them) and to be more impacted by / sensitive to traumatic (for them) outside events. And this sensitivity can often manifest as depression, anxiety and shyness.
On the up side it would seem that those who enjoyed good parenting and care and a stable home environment tend to have fewer emotional problems and more social skills (e.g. empathy, building alliances, handling conflict, and other leader qualities) than their lower reactive peers, perhaps partly due to a tendency to spend a lot of time watching and observing social dynamics as against diving in straight away.
If raised in supportive environments the high reactives tend to be more resistant than other kids to common illnesses such as colds, but may become ill more easily if raised in stressful conditions. Ideal parenting here calls for reading cues and respecting the kid's individuality, being warm and firm in placing demands rather than harsh or hostile, promoting curiosity and academic achievement (studies suggest that extraverts generally tend to get better grades earlier, with the introverts catching up / overtaking at 2nd and 3rd level - more a matter of persistent application than smartness per se), delayed gratification and self-control, and not being too severe or neglectful or inconsistent.
Low reactive kids on the other hand tend to take risk in their stride all through life. Low reactive extraverted kids, if raised by attentive families in safe environments, can grow up into energetic achievers with big personalities. But if they had negligent caregivers and bad neighbourhoods they might turn out to be bullies, juvenile delinquents or criminals (per some psychologists).To teach them values it may be best to give them positive role models and to channel their fearlessness into productive activities.
The amygdala, and the limbic system of which it's a key part, is an ancient part of our evolved brain. As mammals became more complex, an area of the brain called the neocortex developed around this limbic system and an important function of part of the latter...the frontal cortex...is to soothe unwarranted fears. Your "primitive" anxiety in a situation does not prevent you being relatively skilled in handling it because the frontal cortex is there to calm you down. However, the amygdala cannot be switched off entirely...rather the basic fear conditioning has simply been temporarily suppressed by the activity of the cortex. And this helps to explain why for example a fear of heights never really fully vanishes even though one may become so well desensitised with repeated exposure that one can easily cope "9 times out of 10"...but the old "touch of the willies" can come roaring back in circumstances of unusual stress when the cortex has other things to do than soothe an excitable amygdala.
What we call "sensitive" types (mainly introverts) tend to be bored by small talk which is not quite as interesting as talking about say opinions and values, if you're thinking in somewhat more complicated ways. They tend to dislike wasting time...their own and that of others...and know how to listen to the sound of silence. They may also be naturally more altruistic, responsible (e.g. sticking to agreements) and adaptive, with harmonious interpersonal relationships fostering empathy (although not at all always so in practice). But given our societal cultural leaning towards the extraverted side of the scales (a "just do it" rather than "watch and wait" majority outlook), it's perhaps reasonable to raise the question of whether the apparent modern decline in empathy in the "West" may have something to do with a growing prevalence of unstable marriage, young suicides, social media, reality TV, individual over-confidence and a "hyper-competitive" environment to the detriment of what we might call "flow" (an optimal state in which you feel totally engaged in an often solitary activity pursued for its own sake rather than for the rewards it brings). In such a state (way beyond the surface level "flitting" norm we're constantly bombarded with) you're neither bored nor anxious, you don't question your adequacy and hours pass without you noticing. And you're also likely "to bring more to the table" when you resume your interacting with others.
It's also sobering in this general area to recall Jung's (originator of the extravert / introvert
"labelling") speculation about the two types..."the one consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defence and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate". And it's indeed ironic that too much "reward sensitivity" can get us into all sorts of trouble (e.g. our financial / gambling history is full of examples of players accelerating when they should be braking) - a rather cautionary note for our extraverts with their greater economic, political and hedonistic ambitions.
"Enjoyment appears at the boundary between boredom and anxiety, when the challenges are just balanced with the person's capacity to act" - Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. This suggests that us humans tend to seek out "just the right" levels of stimulation...not too much and not too little (your "sweet spot" which of course is not at all static). And in the workplace for example introverts tend to enjoy "shutting their doors" and plunging into their work, because for them this sort of quiet intellectual activity is optimally stimulating, whereas natural extraverts tend to function best when engaged in higher wattage activities like organising team-building workshops or chairing meetings. Over-arousal for the former generally doesn't produce anxiety so much as the sense that you can't think straight (e.g. interfering with attention and short term memory)...you've had enough and would like to go home now (like Forrest Gump!). On the other hand under-arousal for the latter is sorta like cabin fever with feelings of itchiness, restlessness and sluggishness when not enough is happening (like Jack Torrance!).
Understanding your "sweet spot" it seems can increase your satisfaction in every area of your life.
A sizable part of who we are appears to be ordained by our genes, brains and nervous system but we also appear to have free will and can use it to shape our personalities, to some extent.
Here's another introverted (subversive?) thought...don't you see how we're nowadays under constant urging (being conned?) into believing that "salesmanship" is really a way of sharing
one's gifts with the world? The way we've structured many of our societal institutions - schools, workplaces, parliament, even our "very public" social media - tends to back up this view despite the potential disadvantages of downsides such as groupthink (though oddly enough academics working together electronically from different physical locations tend to produce research with greater influence - but maybe collaborating in this manner could be regarded as more a form of isolated working anyway?). We might be better served overall were the emphasis to swing a little more towards encouraging our children, employees and citizens to think and work independently, with plenty of privacy and autonomy (aka relatively "isolated" and self-evaluating deliberate practice). Indeed personal space and freedom from "peer pressure" may well be vital to our creativity. On a lighter note there's the truism that taking shelter in the "restroom" is a surprisingly common phenomenon, especially for introverts.
Of course a fair degree of inherent courage is required in order to cope with "the pain of
independence". Many of our civic institutions (e.g. elections, jury trials, majority rule) depend for their true effectiveness on dissenting voices. However, we know that groups are literally capable of changing our perceptions to the detriment of our true beliefs, and standing alone in this context can activate primitive, powerful and unconscious feelings of rejection - hardly a healthy outcome for the individual or society.
Let's be clear, while the tendency of extraverts is towards leadership in the public domain
(including politics) and that of introverts is more towards influence in theoretical and aesthetic
fields, healthy well balanced societies need to respect and foster both behavioural types in order to truly thrive. And if only for this very reason we may now need to rebalance the scales somewhat to make the benefits of introversion more visible than heretofore.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
October, 2014.
Note: Shyness = fear of social disapproval / humiliation.
Introversion = preference for environments that are not overstimulating.